Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 79 references

This paper claims that dark matter and dark energy are the phase and modulus of a single complex scalar field, and that the resulting interaction produces a slowly decreasing effective Hubble constant that fits binned type-Ia supernova data

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 11:19 UTC pith:K4CF6FPT

load-bearing objection The DM-DE unification idea is worth a look, but a sign error in the printed equations reverses the predicted H0(z) trend, so the claimed fit to the binned Pantheon data doesn't follow. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.19915 v1 pith:K4CF6FPT submitted 2026-07-22 astro-ph.CO

QCD CP-violation scenario for a revised cosmological dynamics: analysis of the binned Pantheon Sample of Super Novae Ia

Giovanni Montani , Nakia Carlevaro , Maria Giovanna Dainotti , Eleonora Giovannetti This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO MSC 83F05 PACS 98.80.-k95.35.+d95.36.+x
keywords axion dark matterdark energycomplex scalar fieldHubble tensionrunning Hubble constantType Ia supernovaedark matter–dark energy interactionmodified Lambda CDM
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper proposes that a single complex scalar field generates both dark matter and dark energy: the phase acts as an axion that behaves like dark matter, while the modulus sits near the top of a Higgs-like potential whose energy acts as a cosmological constant. Because both sectors share one potential, a small dark-matter–dark-energy interaction emerges naturally when the modulus rolls away from the maximum. The paper derives a modified Friedmann equation in which the dark-matter density is mildly and monotonically suppressed, and builds from it an effective running Hubble constant H0(z). Fitting this theoretical curve to the binned Pantheon supernova data yields a slightly better fit than ΛCDM and reproduces the observed decreasing trend of H0 with redshift. If correct, the Hubble tension and the possible evolution of dark energy could share a single physical origin in an axion–Higgs complex field.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a natural dark-matter–dark-energy interaction arises when the complex scalar potential is expanded near its maximum, and that this interaction makes the effective Hubble constant decrease with redshift in a way that matches the binned Pantheon supernova data. The key result is the closed-form solution ϵa = ϵa0 (1+z)^3 e^{-2δρ/σ0}, which shows the axion (dark matter) energy density is exponentially suppressed as the modulus displacement δρ grows; this suppression is what bends H0(z) downward. The best-fit value Δ = 0.00964 ± 0.00457 quantifies the effect, and the paper reports its statistical performance is between the empirical power-la

What carries the argument

The central object is a complex scalar field with potential V = ϵΛ − ½ μ0² (ρ−σ0)² + (λ0/24)(ρ−σ0)⁴ + ma²ρ²(1−cosθ). Expanding near the maximum ρ = σ0 and averaging over the rapidly oscillating axion phase reduces the cosmology to two equations: dξ/dz = Δ (1+z)²/E(z) and E² = (Ωb + Ωa e^{−2ξ})(1+z)³ + 1 − Ωb − Ωa. The exponential factor e^{−2δρ/σ0} is the load-bearing mechanism: it converts the rolling of the modulus into a monotonic suppression of the dark-matter density, and that suppression is what produces the running H0(z) diagnostic used to fit the supernova data.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that today the modulus field sits exactly at the maximum of its potential (the paper sets δρ(z=0)=0 'without loss of generality') and that the time derivative of the modulus displacement dominates over the displacement itself, so the exponential factor that drives the H0(z) decline has the right sign and amplitude; Δ is then fixed by fitting, not predicted.

What would settle it

A measurement of the dark-matter density at intermediate redshifts (z ≈ 1–2) that shows no monotonic suppression relative to (1+z)^3 would directly contradict the model's central prediction. Alternatively, an independent derivation of the initial modulus displacement or of μ0 from high-energy physics that gives a value of Δ far from the fitted 0.00964 would falsify the specific scenario, since Δ is currently a free parameter constrained only by the supernova fit.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If correct, the dark-energy sector is not a bare cosmological constant but the potential energy of a field hovering near the maximum of a Higgs-like potential, so its equation of state can drift slightly from −1 even though its today value is nearly constant.
  • The model provides a microscopic justification for dark-matter–dark-energy interaction: the coupling is not inserted by hand but comes from the shared potential of a single complex scalar field.
  • The observed decreasing H0(z) from binned supernovae is interpreted as a genuine background-dynamics effect, so part of the Hubble tension could be resolved by the dark sector rather than by unknown supernova systematics.
  • The same framework can be pushed to higher redshifts to predict recombination-era signatures, providing an independent test with CMB data, as the paper itself suggests.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the mechanism survives, the exponential suppression of dark matter should be visible in other late-universe probes that trace the total matter density, such as galaxy cluster counts or weak lensing; this is an extension the paper does not compute.
  • Because Δ is a fitted number, the model currently explains the trend but does not predict its amplitude; deriving Δ from the axion mass and the QCD scale would turn the scenario from a fit into a genuine test.
  • The same complex-field structure could be embedded in the early universe, where the modulus would have been near the maximum and the axion phase would follow the standard misalignment mechanism; this could connect the H0(z) fit to primordial axion production.
  • The paper's comparison suggests that a theoretical dark-matter–dark-energy interaction can mimic the empirical power-law H0(1+z)^{−0.016}; a decisive experiment would be measuring H0(z) at z > 2, where the power-law and the exponential-suppression shapes diverge.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a dark-matter/dark-energy interaction model based on a single complex scalar field: the phase is treated as the QCD axion (dark matter), while the modulus behaves as a Higgs-like field near the top of its potential (dark energy). Expanding the potential near the maximum and averaging over axion oscillations leads to a modified Friedmann equation in which the dark-matter density acquires a factor e^{-2\delta\rho/\sigma_0}. The authors construct an effective running Hubble constant H_0(z), fit its single free parameter \Delta to the 40-bin Pantheon SnIa H_0(z) reconstruction, and claim that the model is slightly favored over \LambdaCDM and can explain the decreasing H_0(z) trend.

Significance. If correct, the paper would offer a particle-physics motivated explanation of the Hubble tension as a running-H_0 effect produced by a DM-DE interaction, and it would make a concrete, testable prediction for H_0(z). The construction is self-contained and the authors compare models with AIC/BIC, which is commendable. However, the quantitative claim rests on a single parameter fitted to the same binned data used for validation, on a sign convention that is internally inconsistent, and on a fine-tuned initial condition. The statistical preference is marginal, and the BIC actually favors \LambdaCDM. These issues substantially reduce the significance of the result as it stands.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III.A, Eqs. (20) and (23)] Equations (20) and (23) are mutually inconsistent. From \dot{\delta\rho}=-H(1+z)d\delta\rho/dz and Eq. (20) with \delta>0, one obtains d\xi/dz=-\Delta(1+z)^2/E(z). Eq. (23) instead has the opposite sign. With the best-fit \Delta>0, Eq. (23) gives \xi>0 and e^{-2\xi}<1, which produces d\ln H_0/dz|_{z=0}\simeq -\Delta \Omega_a<0, i.e. the claimed decreasing H_0(z). The correct sign gives \xi<0, dark-matter enhancement, and a rising H_0(z). Because the sign of \xi is the physical mechanism behind the central claim, this is a load-bearing inconsistency, not a typographical detail.
  2. [§IV, Eqs. (24)-(27) and Fig. 1] The parameter \Delta is fitted directly to the same binned H_0(z) data used to claim agreement. Those binned data are themselves constructed within a \LambdaCDM calibration, with absolute magnitude M=-19.245 fixed from H_0=73.5. The comparison is therefore partly circular: the model is validated on its own training data. Moreover, the statistical evidence is marginal: \Delta=0.00964\pm0.00457 is only about 2.1\sigma from zero, the \chi^2_{\rm red} differences among models are small, AIC differs by only ~0.5, and BIC actually favors \LambdaCDM. The statement in the abstract and conclusions that the model is "statistically favored" over \LambdaCDM overstates the support.
  3. [§III.A, Eq. (19)] The assumption \delta\rho(z=0)=0, described as "without loss of generality," is not without loss: it places the field exactly at an unstable maximum today and, together with the sign of \delta, selects the sign and magnitude of the correction factor e^{-2\delta\rho/\sigma_0}. No independent constraint on \mu_0, \delta, or the initial offset is provided. The validity condition |\delta\rho/\dot{\delta\rho}|\ll 3H_0/\mu_0^2 is assumed rather than checked against the fitted parameters. Thus the closed-form solution (19)-(24) and the predicted trend of H_0(z) are not robust consequences of the quantum-field-theory construction as presented.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§III.A, Eq. (15)] The last term in Eq. (15) appears to have typographical errors: dividing Eq. (12) by \sigma_0 yields m_a^2\theta, not \sigma_0^2 m_a^2\theta^2. As printed, Eq. (15) is not the oscillator equation used to obtain Eq. (16).
  2. [§IV, p. 7] The sentence "(inverse) p-values close to unity" is unclear; inverse p-values are not standard and should be defined or replaced by the actual p-value or a goodness-of-fit measure.
  3. [Title and §II] The phrase "QCD CP-violation scenario" is never developed; the paper assumes an axion phase and refers to the strong-CP problem, but no CP-violating mechanism is analyzed. The title therefore overstates the scope.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Central 'decreasing H0(z)' result is driven by the single parameter Δ fitted to the same binned data; no load-bearing self-citation found in the field-theory derivation.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV, Eq. (27); Sec. V (Concluding Remarks)]
    "Using the 40-bin reconstruction of H0(z) described above, we perform a nonlinear fit, obtaining the best-fit value Δ = 0.00964 ± 0.00457. ... we can conclude that our proposal for a natural DM-DE interaction is able to produce a decreasing behavior of the effective running Hubble constant from a theoretical point of view, and is also in very good agreement with the binned Pantheon sample data."

    Δ is the single new model parameter; through Eq. (23) it determines ξ(z), hence the exponential factor e^{-2ξ} in Eq. (24), and therefore the slope of the diagnostic H0(z) in Eq. (26). The same binned H0(z) data are used both to fix Δ by the nonlinear fit and, in the conclusions, as evidence that the model 'is able to produce a decreasing behavior' and is in 'very good agreement' with the data. Thus the decreasing trend is not an independent prediction: the fit selects the sign and amplitude of the effect, so the claimed agreement is a fit statistic rather than a parameter-free confirmation.

full rationale

The field-theory part of the paper is largely self-contained: the Lagrangian, the near-maximum expansion, the averaging over axion oscillations, and the resulting E(z) are derived in the text, and I find no load-bearing self-citation chain that reduces the derivation to earlier work by the same authors. The circularity is concentrated in the comparison step: the model has one extra free parameter, Δ, which controls the sign and size of the deviation from ΛCDM in H0(z), and that parameter is fitted to the very same binned H0(z) data against which the paper claims agreement. This makes the central 'prediction' of a decreasing H0(z) statistically forced by the fit, warranting a partial-circularity score of 6 rather than a lower score. I am not scoring two additional caveats as circularity, but they are relevant to the verdict. First, the binned H0(z) data are constructed under a fiducial ΛCDM calibration (Sec. IV: M = -19.245, H0 = 73.5, Ωm fixed), so the comparison partly measures consistency with that calibration; the paper itself concedes this in Sec. V ('according to the basic construction of the binned data via a ΛCDM model in each bin'). Second, there is an apparent sign inconsistency between Eq. (20) and Eq. (23): Eq. (20) implies dξ/dz = -Δ(1+z)^2/E(z), while Eq. (23) prints a plus sign. This would reverse the predicted trend of H0(z) and is a correctness issue, not a circularity, so it is not counted in the score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central result depends on one fitted parameter Δ plus a chain of approximations: near-maximum expansion, δρ̇ dominance, δρ(0)=0, and oscillation averaging. The QCD/axion scale enters only through a term that is neglected in Eq. (21), so the QCD content does not constrain the fitted curve.

free parameters (1)
  • Δ (integration constant δ normalized by H0σ0) = 0.00964 ± 0.00457
    Controls the amplitude of the DM suppression e^{-2δρ/σ0}; obtained by nonlinear fit to the binned H0(z) data. It is not predicted from QCD/axion parameters and is the only free parameter of the SF model.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Flat FLRW universe with only baryonic matter plus the complex scalar field (Eqs. 8-9)
    Standard cosmological background assumed; restricts the model to a homogeneous isotropic late-time universe.
  • ad hoc to paper Truncation of the potential near ρ=σ0, θ=0 to second order, with δρ̇ retained while δρ and μ0² δρ are neglected (Sec. III.A)
    This flatness hierarchy yields the closed form δρ̇=δ(1+z)^3 and the exponential DM suppression. The paper does not independently validate |3H δρ̇| ≫ |μ0² δρ| from data or from QCD inputs.
  • ad hoc to paper The modulus reaches its potential maximum today: δρ(z=0)=0, called 'without loss of generality'
    This is not WLOG; it fixes the normalization of ξ and, together with the sign of δ, sets the shape and sign of the predicted H0(z).
  • domain assumption Averaging over fast axion oscillations (m_a ≫ H0) turns θ into a pressureless DM fluid with ε_a = σ0²⟨θ̇²⟩ (Eq. 16)
    Standard axion DM treatment, but it is a homogeneity/averaging assumption required to connect the phase dynamics to a DM energy density.
  • domain assumption Terms of order √χ σ0 ~ [10^-8, 10^-5] are neglected in Eq. (21), removing direct dependence on m_a and λ_QCD
    Justified by the QCD scale estimate, but it means the 'QCD CP-violation' derivation has no effect on the fitted curve.
  • domain assumption The binned H0(z) values from [41,42] are an unbiased diagnostic, despite being constructed with ΛCDM distance moduli and fixed M=-19.245 from H0=73.5
    The fitted 'data' are model-dependent reconstructions; the comparison with SF and ΛCDM inherits this calibration.
invented entities (1)
  • Complex scalar field whose modulus is a Higgs-like DE component and whose phase is the QCD axion DM no independent evidence
    purpose: Unifies DM and DE; the common potential produces a DM-DE interaction and a redshift-dependent H0(z) diagnostic.
    No new particle mass, coupling, or collider/astrophysical signature is predicted beyond the known axion. The only cosmological consequence is H0(z), whose shape is controlled by the fitted Δ, so there is no falsifiable handle independent of this paper's fit.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11738 in / 18063 out tokens · 181387 ms · 2026-08-01T11:19:13.962236+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate a modified cosmological dynamics in which the Universe is composed of baryonic matter and a complex (classical) scalar field. The phase component of this field is identified with the axion field, which accounts for the dark matter contribution, while its modulus follows a $\lambda\phi^4$-like theory, associated with a dominant constant energy density and describing the dark energy component of the Universe. When the potential term of this complex scalar field is studied near its maximum, it naturally provides an interaction term between dark matter and dark energy. The cosmological model that emerges from this physical framework leads to a modified $\Lambda$CDM dynamics, in which the dark matter contribution is slightly and monotonically suppressed. We then construct the effective running Hubble constant associated with this revised cosmological scenario and we compare this diagnostic tool with the binned data of the Pantheon Sample of Type Ia Supernovae. As a result of the fitting procedure, we are able to provide a satisfactory interpretation of the data in terms of our theoretical conjecture that results statistically favored with respect to the $\Lambda$CDM model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19915 by Eleonora Giovannetti, Giovanni Montani, Maria Giovanna Dainotti, Nakia Carlevaro.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 50 linked inside Pith

  1. [2]

    Santiago, K

    J. Santiago, K. Asvesta, M. G. Dainotti, and P. Chen, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics51, 100554 (2026), 2510.20705

    arXiv 2026

  2. [3]

    Verde, T

    L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess, Nature Astronomy3, 891 (2019), 1907.10625

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  3. [4]

    Di Valentino, O

    E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess, and J. Silk, Classical and Quantum Gravity38, 153001 (2021), 2103.01183. 8

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  4. [5]

    Efstathiou, Mon

    G. Efstathiou, Mon. Not. RAS505, 3866 (2021), 2103.08723

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  5. [7]

    Sch¨ oneberg, G

    N. Sch¨ oneberg, G. F. Abell´ an, A. P. S´ anchez, S. J. Witte, V. Poulin, and J. Lesgourgues, Phys. Rep.984, 1 (2022), 2107.10291

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  6. [8]

    Abdalla, G

    E. Abdalla, G. F. Abell´ an, A. Aboubrahim, A. Agnello, ¨O. Akarsu, Y. Akrami, G. Alestas, D. Aloni, L. Amendola, L. A. Anchordoqui, et al., J. High Energy Astrophys.34, 49 (2022), 2203.06142

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  7. [9]

    Vagnozzi, Universe9, 393 (2023), 2308.16628

    S. Vagnozzi, Universe9, 393 (2023), 2308.16628

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [10]

    Kamionkowski and A

    M. Kamionkowski and A. G. Riess, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science73, 153 (2023), 2211.04492

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  9. [11]

    Hu and F.-Y

    J.-P. Hu and F.-Y. Wang, Universe9, 94 (2023), 2302.05709

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  10. [12]

    Dainotti, B

    M. Dainotti, B. De Simone, G. Montani;, T. Schiavone;, and G. Lambiase., PoSCORFU2022, 235 (2023), 2301.10572

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [13]

    Di Valentino, J

    E. Di Valentino, J. L. Said, A. Riess, A. Pollo, V. Poulin, A. G´ omez-Valent, A. Weltman, A. Palmese, C. D. Huang, C. van de Bruck, et al., Physics of the Dark Universe49, 101965 (2025), 2504.01669

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [14]

    Chluba, G

    J. Chluba, G. Vasil, and R. Battye,MNRAS543, 456 (2025), 2505.22242

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [15]

    H¨ og ˚ as and E

    M. H¨ og ˚ as and E. M¨ ortsell, Phys. Rev. D112, 103515 (2025), 2507.03743

    arXiv 2025

  14. [16]

    Z. J. Hoelscher, T. W. Kephart, and K. Holley-Bockelmann, Phys. Rev. D112, 123509 (2025), 2507.23157

    arXiv 2025

  15. [17]

    Briscese, European Physical Journal C85, 1020 (2025), 2509.25287

    F. Briscese, European Physical Journal C85, 1020 (2025), 2509.25287

    arXiv 2025

  16. [18]

    M. T. Manoharan, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2505.24743 (2025), 2505.24743

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [19]

    Yarahmadi and A

    M. Yarahmadi and A. Salehi, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2506.02235 (2025), 2506.02235

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [20]

    Erdem, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2508.19770 (2025), 2508.19770

    R. Erdem, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2508.19770 (2025), 2508.19770

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [21]

    Lee, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2509.08840 (2025), 2509.08840

    S. Lee, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2509.08840 (2025), 2509.08840

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [22]

    Martins, S

    G. Martins, S. Gonz´ alez-Gait´ an, J. Duarte, and A. M. Mour˜ ao, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2511.14332 (2025), 2511.14332

    arXiv 2025

  21. [23]

    Carloni, O

    Y. Carloni, O. Luongo, and M. Muccino, A& A707, A383 (2026), 2506.11531

    arXiv 2026

  22. [24]

    Courbin and A

    F. Courbin and A. Maeder, Symmetry18, 207 (2026), 2602.04532

    arXiv 2026

  23. [25]

    Benetti, D

    M. Benetti, D. A. Cook, and S. Carneiro, JCAP2026, 043 (2026), 2508.00759

    arXiv 2026

  24. [26]

    S. V. Lohakare, S. K. Maurya, A. Al Qassabi, and B. Mishra, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2601.10127 (2026), 2601.10127

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  25. [27]

    Schiavone, M

    T. Schiavone, M. De Angelis, L. A. Escamilla, G. Montani, and E. Di Valentino, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2601.14222 (2026), 2601.14222

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  26. [28]

    Z. J. Hoelscher, T. W. Kephart, R. J. Scherrer, and K. Holley-Bockelmann, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2602.01543 (2026), 2602.01543

    arXiv 2026

  27. [29]

    Kouniatalis, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2603.11706 (2026), 2603.11706

    G. Kouniatalis, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2603.11706 (2026), 2603.11706

    arXiv 2026

  28. [30]

    Carmesin, Foundations6, 7 (2026)

    H.-O. Carmesin, Foundations6, 7 (2026)

    2026

  29. [31]

    Aghanim, Y

    N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bar- tolo, S. Basak, et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics641, A6 (2020), ISSN 1432-0746, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1051/ 0004-6361/201833910

    2020

  30. [32]

    D. M. Scolnic, D. O. Jones, A. Rest, Y. C. Pan, R. Chornock, R. J. Foley, M. E. Huber, R. Kessler, G. Narayan, A. G. Riess, et al., ApJ859, 101 (2018), 1710.00845

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [33]

    Scolnic et al., Astrophys

    D. Scolnic et al., Astrophys. J.938, 113 (2022), 2112.03863

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  32. [34]

    Brout et al., Astrophys

    D. Brout et al., Astrophys. J.938, 110 (2022), 2202.04077

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [35]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), arXiv:2404.03002 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [36]

    Abdul Karim et al

    M. Abdul Karim et al. (DESI),DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints(2025), 2503.14738

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [37]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10, 213 (2001), gr-qc/0009008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  36. [38]

    E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 091301 (2003), astro-ph/0208512

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  37. [39]

    Weinberg,Cosmology(Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2008)

    S. Weinberg,Cosmology(Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2008)

    2008

  38. [40]

    Alestas, L

    G. Alestas, L. Kazantzidis, and L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D101, 123516 (2020), 2004.08363

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  39. [41]

    M. G. Dainotti, B. De Simone, T. Schiavone, G. Montani, E. Rinaldi, and G. Lambiase, ApJ912, 150 (2021), 2103.02117

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [42]

    M. G. Dainotti, B. De Simone, T. Schiavone, G. Montani, E. Rinaldi, G. Lambiase, M. Bogdan, and S. Ugale, Galaxies 10(2022), ISSN 2075-4434, URLhttps://www.mdpi.com/2075-4434/10/1/24

    2022

  41. [43]

    Bousis and L

    D. Bousis and L. Perivolaropoulos, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2405.07039 (2024), 2405.07039

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [44]

    Perivolaropoulos, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2408.11031 (2024), 2408.11031

    L. Perivolaropoulos, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2408.11031 (2024), 2408.11031

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [45]

    ´O Colg´ ain, M

    E. ´O Colg´ ain, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, R. Solomon, M. G. Dainotti, and D. Stojkovic, Physics of the Dark Universe44, 101464 (2024), 2206.11447

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [46]

    Lemos, E

    P. Lemos, E. Lee, G. Efstathiou, and S. Gratton,MNRAS483, 4803 (2019), 1806.06781

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  45. [47]

    B. D. Simone, M. H. P. M. van Putten, M. G. Dainotti, and G. Lambiase,A doublet of cosmological models to challenge the h0 tension in the pantheon supernovae ia catalog(2024)

    2024

  46. [48]

    M. G. Dainotti, A. L. Lenart, A. Chraya, G. Sarracino, S. Nagataki, N. Fraija, S. Capozziello, and M. Bogdan, Mon. Not. RAS518, 2201 (2023), 2209.08675

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [49]

    LeClair, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics51, 100546 (2026), 2509.02636

    A. LeClair, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics51, 100546 (2026), 2509.02636

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  48. [50]

    Krishnan, E

    C. Krishnan, E. ´O Colg´ ain, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and T. Yang, Phys. Rev. D103, 103509 (2021), 2011.02858

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  49. [51]

    Krishnan and R

    C. Krishnan and R. Mondol, arXiv:2201.13384 (2022)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  50. [52]

    M. G. Dainotti, V. Petrosian, and L. Bowden, ApJ Lett.914, L40 (2021), 2104.13555

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  51. [53]

    Schiavone, G

    T. Schiavone, G. Montani, and F. Bombacigno, Mon. Not. RAS522, L72 (2023), ISSN 1745-3925, 9 https://academic.oup.com/mnrasl/article-pdf/522/1/L72/49797831/slad041.pdf, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1093/ mnrasl/slad041

    2023

  52. [54]

    L. A. Escamilla, D. Fiorucci, G. Montani, and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Dark Univ.46, 101652 (2024), 2408.04354

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  53. [55]

    Montani, N

    G. Montani, N. Carlevaro, L. A. Escamilla, and E. Di Valentino, Phys. Dark Univ48, 101848 (2025)

    2025

  54. [56]

    Montani, M

    G. Montani, M. De Angelis, F. Bombacigno, and N. Carlevaro, Mon. Not. RAS527, L156–L161 (2024), 2306.11101

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [57]

    Fazzari, M

    E. Fazzari, M. G. Dainotti, G. Montani, and A. Melchiorri, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics49, 100459 (2026), 2506.04162

    arXiv 2026

  56. [58]

    Navone, M

    I. Navone, M. G. Dainotti, E. Fazzari, G. Montani, and N. Maki, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2511.16130 (2025), 2511.16130

    arXiv 2025

  57. [59]

    B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela, and D. Pav´ on, Reports on Progress in Physics79, 096901 (2016), ISSN 1361- 6633, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/79/9/096901

    doi:10.1088/0034-4885/79/9/096901 2016

  58. [60]

    Schiavone and G

    T. Schiavone and G. Montani, arXiv:2408.01410 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [61]

    E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner,The Early Universe, Frontiers in Physics (Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, CA, 1990)

    1990

  60. [62]

    Efstathiou and S

    G. Efstathiou and S. Gratton, Mon. Not. RAS496, L91 (2020), 2002.06892

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  61. [63]

    J. E. Kim and G. Carosi, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 557 (2010), [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 91, 049902 (2019)], 0807.3125

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  62. [64]

    R. D. Peccei,The Strong CP Problem and Axions(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008), p. 3–17, ISBN 9783540735182, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73518-2_1

    doi:10.1007/978-3-540-73518-2_1 2008

  63. [65]

    D. M. Scolnic, D. O. Jones, A. Rest, Y. C. Pan, R. Chornock, R. J. Foley, M. E. Huber, R. Kessler, G. Narayan, A. G. Riess, et al., The Astrophysical Journal859, 101 (2018), ISSN 1538-4357, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aab9bb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab9bb 2018

  64. [66]

    Montani, N

    G. Montani, N. Carlevaro, and M. Dainotti, Physics of the Dark Universe48, 101847 (2025), ISSN 2212-6864, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2025.101847

    arXiv 2025

  65. [67]

    We here use for the binning analysis Gaussian likelihoods, but for a different treatment of non-Gaussianity likelihoods see [71]

    or log 10(1/(1 +z)) see [69, 70]. We here use for the binning analysis Gaussian likelihoods, but for a different treatment of non-Gaussianity likelihoods see [71]. The observed distance modulus is defined asµ obs =m B −M, where mB denotes the apparent B-band magnitude (including both statistical and systematic corrections) andMrepresents the absolute magn...

  66. [68]

    M. G. Dainotti, B. De Simone, A. Mondal, K. Kohri, A. C´ esar Caligula do Esp ´ ırito Santo Pedreira, A. Bashyal, R. H. Dejrah, S. Nagataki, G. Montani, A. Singh, et al., arXiv e-prints arXiv:2501.11772 (2025), 2501.11772

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  67. [69]

    M. G. Dainotti, B. D. Simone, T. Schiavone, G. Montani, E. Rinaldi, and G. Lambiase, The Astrophysical Journal912, 150 (2021), URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abeb73

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abeb73 2021

  68. [70]

    M. G. Dainotti, A. L. Lenart, M. G. Yengejeh, S. Chakraborty, N. Fraija, E. Di Valentino, and G. Montani, Physics of the Dark Universe44, 101428 (2024), 2401.12847

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  69. [71]

    M. G. Dainotti, G. Bargiacchi, A. L. Lenart, and S. Capozziello, Galaxies12, 4 (2024), 2401.11998

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  70. [72]

    Dainotti, G

    M. Dainotti, G. Bargiacchi, M. Bogdan, S. Capozziello, and S. Nagataki, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics41, 30 (2024), ISSN 2214-4048

    2024

  71. [73]

    J. Guy, M. Sullivan, A. Conley, N. Regnault, P. Astier, C. Balland, S. Basa, R. G. Carlberg, D. Fouchez, D. Hardin, et al., A& A523, A7 (2010), 1010.4743

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  72. [74]

    Chotard, E

    N. Chotard, E. Gangler, G. Aldering, P. Antilogus, C. Aragon, S. Bailey, C. Baltay, S. Bongard, C. Buton, A. Canto, et al., A& A529, L4 (2011), 1103.5300

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  73. [75]

    M. G. Dainotti, A. L. Lenart, G. Sarracino, S. Nagataki, S. Capozziello, and N. Fraija, The Astrophysical Journal904, 97 (2020), URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abbe8a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbe8a 2020

  74. [76]

    Bargiacchi, M

    G. Bargiacchi, M. G. Dainotti, S. Nagataki, and S. Capozziello, Mon. Not. RAS521, 3909 (2023), 2303.07076

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  75. [77]

    M. G. Dainotti, G. Sarracino, and S. Capozziello, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan74, 1095 (2022), 2206.07479

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  76. [78]

    M. G. Dainotti, G. Bargiacchi, M. Bogdan, A. L. Lenart, K. Iwasaki, S. Capozziello, B. Zhang, and N. Fraija, apJ951, 63 (2023), 2305.10030

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  77. [79]

    M. G. Dainotti, G. Bargiacchi, A. L. Lenart, S. Nagataki, and S. Capozziello, Astrophys. J.950, 45 (2023), 2305.19668

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  78. [80]

    A. L. Lenart, G. Bargiacchi, M. G. Dainotti, S. Nagataki, and S. Capozziello, ApJ Supp. Series264, 46 (2023)

    2023

  79. [81]

    Sikivie, Int

    P. Sikivie, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A25, 554 (2010), 0909.0949

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010